|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 22 2012 18:12 Xglutlewl wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 17:57 Xapti wrote:On February 22 2012 17:45 taitanik wrote:
if 3 teenagers jump on you with baseball bats ofcourse you want to have a gun and a lot of teenagers have nothing better to do these days than beating people up I'm not sure what your point is, but if it's in favor of handguns that's a pretty ineffective example scenario (probably also unrealistic, as I haven't heard of kids ganging up on others solely for entertainment). I'd much rather have 1 beaten-up kid (who possibly deserved it) than 1 kid who threw away his life for a life of prison, along with 3 dead people. Guns don't really save lives in civilian hands — all they do is put more people in jail, and kill more people even if it's criminals. Guns aren't the only defense option either — carrying around a long knife or pepper spray are pretty reasonable defenses even against 3 people. By your logic we should also take away knives and pepper spray, since those have both killed people. In fact, knives can be more deadly as they have no stopping power until the stabbed has bled to unconciousness. Guns save lives daily. A baseball bat is deadly force, and a gun is a reasonable response. Most often the drawing of the firearm ends the altercation, and no shots are fired. No — I did not state that guns should be illegal because they can sometimes kill people.
The problem is that guns are pretty much designed to kill people, and most-likely will. Aside from that, guns kill from long range; whether a person is running away, walking towards them, close-up, or 30m+ away.
Knifes and pepper spray have limited ranges so you can't even hurt people unless they are right up to you — they are more of a true self-defense weapon. They are also not powerful enough to take out an entire classroom or office of people.
The problem with most guns is that they are just too offensive. The only defense it offers is from preemptive offense. A gun does not defend from another gun, since whoever draws a gun out first wins. If a person wants you dead you cannot outrun it either — it's far more effective at committing crimes than preventing them. Sure alternatives to guns can be problematic, but it's all about the relative amount of problems that the weapons provide.
|
On February 22 2012 22:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
That said, people who want to ban guns in the U.S. aren't thinking about the situation enough. Yes, banning gun ownership has worked across Europe and several other countries across the world, but all of these countries are very different from the U.S. Guns are incredibly rampant across this country, and because they already are, you're never going to get rid of them. Criminals may never (or very, very rarely) have guns in other countries, but if you ban guns here, criminals will still have them due to the sheer amount of guns that are already in place in our country/culture. This means that this can't be used as a legitimate excuse to ban gun ownership.
Most of us Europeans agree with it I think. We are just saying that's where we should tend. It will maybe take 20, 30 years...It didn't happen in one day in Europe either.
|
On February 22 2012 23:38 DoubleReed wrote:
Hmm... some of these arguments dont hold.
I think people are forgetting that there is huge onus on the banning side of things due to the simple idea that people should be able to do what they want. That's the fundamental idea to start with. The default position should always be freedom over restriction. It is on the people to ban guns to have convincing evidence.
I'm not saying that there isn't convincing evidence because I haven't really checked. But the default is allowing.
Individual rights have their limits. There is somewhere where you need to put a stop. Or let people have their own bombs, kalashnikov etc.
I think the stop should be before guns, you think it should be after. But don't say freedom should have the priority on restrictions. In some case it should not, I believe talking about guns it doesn't.
|
On February 23 2012 00:51 Tobberoth wrote:
Only law-abiding citizens would hand in their guns, criminals wouldn't. And with the amount of guns in circulation in the US, that would make those law abiding citizens quite unsafe since suddenly, criminals have tons of weapons and they have none.
I don't understand how you can say that gun vs gun is safer than gun vs no gun. Gun vs no gun just means that the people with the guns may get away with what they're doing (which obviously would be a problem, but it's not really less safe). Guns don't really prevent murder from other guns, if anything it may even increase the rate of deaths.
I am in concordance with the fact that it would be problematic for the US to abolish guns (at least in any short timespan), but that doesn't mean abolished guns can't be considered an ideal scenario.
|
On February 23 2012 05:55 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 00:51 Tobberoth wrote:
Only law-abiding citizens would hand in their guns, criminals wouldn't. And with the amount of guns in circulation in the US, that would make those law abiding citizens quite unsafe since suddenly, criminals have tons of weapons and they have none. I don't understand how you can say that gun vs gun is safer than gun vs no gun. Gun vs no gun just means that the people with the guns may get away with what they're doing (which obviously would be a problem, but it's not really less safe). Guns don't really prevent murder from other guns, if anything it may even increase the rate of deaths. I am in concordance with the fact that it would be problematic for the US to abolish guns (at least in any short timespan), but that doesn't mean abolished guns can't be considered an ideal scenario.
One word: Witness.
Ever heard of it ? I don't know what world you live in, but you're quite naive.
|
On February 20 2012 03:10 Macabre wrote:
People killed people just fine before guns. And they will continue to do so for the rest of time, with or without them.
then why you need them ?
usa are so much more kills then anywhere in the western world and where else so much childs can shoot some others because they get to easy to guns 
for me a 100% no! it should not be allowed and i am happy to life in a country where it is not allowed (only for hunters and then you have 100 rules and automatic weapons, which alot in usa have as example, are allowed for NO one)
the only people that need guns are soldiers and police and no one else.
for me i would prefer to make it even harder to get weapons for sport here, but come on the paintball things should REALLY be legal (its also sometimes kind of illegal here so we have to play in the netherlands^^)
americans often come with "Freedom" and "human rights" but for me thats bullshit ... if this kind would be used always it would be your freedom to have an own nuclear weapon in your garden ... i dont think that a weapon belongs to human rights or freedom its just to kill and nothing else and so i am happy that when i fight with someone in the city i am pretty sure he dont have a gun
|
On February 23 2012 06:37 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 05:55 Xapti wrote:On February 23 2012 00:51 Tobberoth wrote:
Only law-abiding citizens would hand in their guns, criminals wouldn't. And with the amount of guns in circulation in the US, that would make those law abiding citizens quite unsafe since suddenly, criminals have tons of weapons and they have none. I don't understand how you can say that gun vs gun is safer than gun vs no gun. Gun vs no gun just means that the people with the guns may get away with what they're doing (which obviously would be a problem, but it's not really less safe). Guns don't really prevent murder from other guns, if anything it may even increase the rate of deaths. I am in concordance with the fact that it would be problematic for the US to abolish guns (at least in any short timespan), but that doesn't mean abolished guns can't be considered an ideal scenario. One word: Witness. Ever heard of it ? I don't know what world you live in, but you're quite naive.
Not sure I understand what you're saying. "Witness" is a word indeed, but beyond that?
|
On February 23 2012 05:50 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 23:38 DoubleReed wrote:
Hmm... some of these arguments dont hold.
I think people are forgetting that there is huge onus on the banning side of things due to the simple idea that people should be able to do what they want. That's the fundamental idea to start with. The default position should always be freedom over restriction. It is on the people to ban guns to have convincing evidence.
I'm not saying that there isn't convincing evidence because I haven't really checked. But the default is allowing. Individual rights have their limits. There is somewhere where you need to put a stop. Or let people have their own bombs, kalashnikov etc. I think the stop should be before guns, you think it should be after. But don't say freedom should have the priority on restrictions. In some case it should not, I believe talking about guns it doesn't.
What? When did I ever say it should be after? Honestly I'm rather neutral on the issue. I'm saying many of these arguments I'm hearing from people are weak, because they assume that the default is that guns are not allowed and it's the government's job to allow guns. Which is not true.
The priority is always, 100% of the time on freedom. All of the time. If you think people shouldn't own nuclear weapons, then you need to have sufficient evidence and reasoning to ban people from owning nuclear weapons. I think you'd agree that as far as nuclear weapons are concerned, that there is sufficient evidence and reasoning to ban people from owning them. The default is still that people should be able to do what they want, but there is an exception for nuclear weapons.
If your arguments are based on evidence and good reasoning, then you can argue to ban guns. You say they're too dangerous? Well, how dangerous are they? Are they dangerous enough to be regulated? Well then we should regulate them. Dangerous enough to be banned altogether? I honestly haven't seen evidence to justify outright banning. You have to present good evidence and reasoning against it.
If you, personally, don't like guns, then that is not good enough, because the priority should always be on freedom. I don't like guns myself, and I'm not comfortable around them.
|
On February 23 2012 07:29 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 06:37 Kaitlin wrote:On February 23 2012 05:55 Xapti wrote:On February 23 2012 00:51 Tobberoth wrote:
Only law-abiding citizens would hand in their guns, criminals wouldn't. And with the amount of guns in circulation in the US, that would make those law abiding citizens quite unsafe since suddenly, criminals have tons of weapons and they have none. I don't understand how you can say that gun vs gun is safer than gun vs no gun. Gun vs no gun just means that the people with the guns may get away with what they're doing (which obviously would be a problem, but it's not really less safe). Guns don't really prevent murder from other guns, if anything it may even increase the rate of deaths. I am in concordance with the fact that it would be problematic for the US to abolish guns (at least in any short timespan), but that doesn't mean abolished guns can't be considered an ideal scenario. One word: Witness. Ever heard of it ? I don't know what world you live in, but you're quite naive. Not sure I understand what you're saying. "Witness" is a word indeed, but beyond that?
Sometimes people kill people because if they don't, then that person can identify / testify against them. It makes it easier to get away with whatever they've done. It makes no sense in the real world that it's better to be unarmed than armed.
|
On February 23 2012 07:04 CoR wrote:then why you need them?
It's not about needing guns. As pointed out by others, the default position is that everything is allowed unless you can show that it causes sufficient harm to require regulation or banning. In other words, the burden of proof is on you to show that guns should be banned, not the other way around.
On February 23 2012 07:04 CoR wrote:usa are so much more kills then anywhere in the western world and where else so much childs can shoot some others because they get to easy to guns
The United States is the most violent first-world nation because it is the most violent, not because of access to guns. In parts of the United States where guns are more heavily restricted, the violent crime rate is still very high (in fact, it tends to be higher); people just kill others with weapons other than guns more.
The high rates of gun ownership and the gun crime rate in the United States are symptoms of the high total violent crime rate (which stems from issues such as wealth inequality, a culture that glorifies violence, etc.), not causes.
|
On February 23 2012 08:42 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 07:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 23 2012 06:37 Kaitlin wrote:On February 23 2012 05:55 Xapti wrote:On February 23 2012 00:51 Tobberoth wrote:
Only law-abiding citizens would hand in their guns, criminals wouldn't. And with the amount of guns in circulation in the US, that would make those law abiding citizens quite unsafe since suddenly, criminals have tons of weapons and they have none. I don't understand how you can say that gun vs gun is safer than gun vs no gun. Gun vs no gun just means that the people with the guns may get away with what they're doing (which obviously would be a problem, but it's not really less safe). Guns don't really prevent murder from other guns, if anything it may even increase the rate of deaths. I am in concordance with the fact that it would be problematic for the US to abolish guns (at least in any short timespan), but that doesn't mean abolished guns can't be considered an ideal scenario. One word: Witness. Ever heard of it ? I don't know what world you live in, but you're quite naive. Not sure I understand what you're saying. "Witness" is a word indeed, but beyond that? Sometimes people kill people because if they don't, then that person can identify / testify against them. It makes it easier to get away with whatever they've done. It makes no sense in the real world that it's better to be unarmed than armed.
Well I know that personally I'm too much of a candy ass to shank someone, but if I had a gun and a lot of emotional baggage... :O --- or a witness to gank... It could help. I'm sure plenty of murders could be avoided if emotion-driven people didn't have access to pistols.
Wonder how many husband and wives get killed every year when the partner learns that they've been getting cheated on. Bang bang. Easy and much less hands-on than "melee weapons".
|
I think I read somewhere that police officers are generally pretty happy people, and have pretty good emotional stability. However, their suicide rates are much higher than normal. I think this is because they always have access to a gun, causing them to act rashly in certain situations. As I said before, gun ownership should be allowed, but restrictions should be tightened and ownership restricted to certain situations.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On February 23 2012 08:42 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 07:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 23 2012 06:37 Kaitlin wrote:On February 23 2012 05:55 Xapti wrote:On February 23 2012 00:51 Tobberoth wrote:
Only law-abiding citizens would hand in their guns, criminals wouldn't. And with the amount of guns in circulation in the US, that would make those law abiding citizens quite unsafe since suddenly, criminals have tons of weapons and they have none. I don't understand how you can say that gun vs gun is safer than gun vs no gun. Gun vs no gun just means that the people with the guns may get away with what they're doing (which obviously would be a problem, but it's not really less safe). Guns don't really prevent murder from other guns, if anything it may even increase the rate of deaths. I am in concordance with the fact that it would be problematic for the US to abolish guns (at least in any short timespan), but that doesn't mean abolished guns can't be considered an ideal scenario. One word: Witness. Ever heard of it ? I don't know what world you live in, but you're quite naive. Not sure I understand what you're saying. "Witness" is a word indeed, but beyond that? Sometimes people kill people because if they don't, then that person can identify / testify against them. It makes it easier to get away with whatever they've done. It makes no sense in the real world that it's better to be unarmed than armed.
People keep trying to make it an argument between having a gun when the criminals have one, or not having a gun when the criminals still have one. That is not how gun control works.
Yes, some hardcore criminals will still have guns even where there is effective gun control, this is a tiny, almost insignificant minority, what gun control does is ensure that the availability of guns dries up for your everyday burglar/mugger/addict.
The real tradeoff between effective gun control and not having it is this:
Either you can defend yourself from criminals with guns, but many more of them will have a gun.
Or the vast majority of criminals simply can't get access to a gun, but sometimes you will be unable to defend yourself if you do come up against those with one.
If you believe it's better to be able to defend yourself, but must come up against firearms MUCH more often, sure thats your preference, we can chalk that up to cultural difference, I can understand and accept your reasoning. But be aware that THIS is the real trade off between the two.
For the rest of the developed nations, It's makes perfect sense to be better off unarmed if you have a reasonable assurance that most people you deal with will also be unarmed. I don't think you understand the point of effective gun control.
People don't support gun control because they want to not own a gun. They support it because they want everyone else to not own a gun, and not being allowed to own a gun themselves is the price they are willing to pay for it.
It makes no sense in your 'real world' to be unarmed if everyone else is going to be armed anyway. It makes perfect sense to be better off unarmed if it all but ensures that everyone else is also unarmed, which is the whole point of gun control.
As people have been conceding, it may indeed be difficult or even unrealistic to enforce gun control, at least in the short term in the US. But for most people arguing the case for gun control, in their(our) 'real world', gun control works and the laws and the enforcement of the laws that make them be unarmed also makes the vast, vast majority of the society they live in, even the criminal element unarmed.
|
On February 23 2012 08:42 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 07:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 23 2012 06:37 Kaitlin wrote:On February 23 2012 05:55 Xapti wrote:On February 23 2012 00:51 Tobberoth wrote:
Only law-abiding citizens would hand in their guns, criminals wouldn't. And with the amount of guns in circulation in the US, that would make those law abiding citizens quite unsafe since suddenly, criminals have tons of weapons and they have none. I don't understand how you can say that gun vs gun is safer than gun vs no gun. Gun vs no gun just means that the people with the guns may get away with what they're doing (which obviously would be a problem, but it's not really less safe). Guns don't really prevent murder from other guns, if anything it may even increase the rate of deaths. I am in concordance with the fact that it would be problematic for the US to abolish guns (at least in any short timespan), but that doesn't mean abolished guns can't be considered an ideal scenario. One word: Witness. Ever heard of it ? I don't know what world you live in, but you're quite naive. Not sure I understand what you're saying. "Witness" is a word indeed, but beyond that? Sometimes people kill people because if they don't, then that person can identify / testify against them. It makes it easier to get away with whatever they've done. It makes no sense in the real world that it's better to be unarmed than armed.
One word: Retaliation
Ever heard of it? I don't know what world you live in, but you're quite naive to believe the gang member trying to steal your TV that you just shot and killed won't be missed. The world isn't just as cut and dry as you make it sound. Everyone's prepared to murder people to commit the relatively minor offense they had in mind? Doubtful. That this would be a problem guns could even solve? Doubtful.
Anyway your entire position rests on a bunch of assumptions. Let's assume we're talking about home invasion and list them.
1) That you will be in this position in your lifetime. It's still very rare. As a result, your proposed cure is worse than the disease. The problems associated with a firearms epidemic would be worse than the tiny percentage of violent home invasions that the police and private security are working to prevent.
2) That your assailant believes he will get caught. Studies have shown the overwhelming majority of criminals don't believe they will get caught.
3) That your assailant will steal your belongings with you around. Studies have shown the overwhelming majority of home invasions occur with the residence vacant.
4) That your assailant will allow you to see their identity. Many wear masks.
5) That a dog would not be a more reasonable way to assuage your fear
6) That your assailant is armed.
7) That your assailant is willing to murder over what is likely B&E and theft under $1000.
8) That your assailant would rather evade the law as a murderer rather than as a burglar over a TV set.
9) That aggressively confronting your assailant is the most appropriate course of action (If this isn't a choice then having a gun may not help you).
10) That having a gun is the safest option. That you won't get shot first by your assailant or an unseen accomplice when they see you have a gun. That you won't accidentally shoot a family member or be shot by a family member. That you won't miss and kill the mailman. That there won't be any retaliation. That the possible retaliation won't take others with you.
In effect, you're lazily presuming a murderous intent for no real reason in order to validate "self defense" with lethal force even though it might not be appropriate. Self defense with lethal force is appropriate after you've made an attempt to escape, not when you kick down your bedroom door, and open fire into the night to save your TV.
Also, it makes considerably more sense to live in a world where no civilians possess guns, than in a world where they all do. This will admittedly be a process, so you can't identify a potential intermediate problem to speak to the virtues/failings of the final goal.
|
better question is should Bears be allowed to own and carry guns, their just godless killing machines. Points to whoever knows where that originates from.
Honestly, depends on where you live, it can depend on the imminent danger all around you because some places in the world are safer than other and officials or in this case cops should have priority over citizens for gun use in such dangerous places
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 23 2012 10:59 sevencck wrote:
One word: Retaliation
Ever heard of it? I don't know what world you live in, but you're quite naive to believe the gang member trying to steal your TV that you just shot and killed won't be missed. The world isn't just as cut and dry as you make it sound. Everyone's prepared to murder people to commit the relatively minor offense they had in mind? Doubtful. That this would be a problem guns could even solve? Doubtful.
According this single-minded search for safety, people should resign themselves to be pillaged and raped and never fight back. The scenario points out that single-minded search for safety by disarming the law-abiding citizenry isn't a full guarantee of safety, and in the extreme situation, attrition by retribution favors law-abiding citizenry.
In the general case, the change in risk-reward also favors non-criminals. Just because gun proliferation is not safer for lawful citizens doesn't mean that criminals will enjoy it.
On February 23 2012 10:59 sevencck wrote:
Anyway your entire position rests on a bunch of assumptions. Let's assume we're talking about home invasion and list them.
1) That you will be in this position in your lifetime. It's still very rare. As a result, your proposed cure is worse than the disease. The problems associated with a firearms epidemic would be worse than the tiny percentage of violent home invasions that the police and private security are working to prevent.
2) That your assailant believes he will get caught. Studies have shown the overwhelming majority of criminals don't believe they will get caught.
3) That your assailant will steal your belongings with you around. Studies have shown the overwhelming majority of home invasions occur with the residence vacant.
4) That your assailant will allow you to see their identity. Many wear masks.
5) That a dog would not be a more reasonable way to assuage your fear
6) That your assailant is armed.
7) That your assailant is willing to murder over what is likely B&E and theft under $1000.
8) That your assailant would rather evade the law as a murderer rather than as a burglar over a TV set.
9) That aggressively confronting your assailant is the most appropriate course of action (If this isn't a choice then having a gun may not help you).
10) That having a gun is the safest option. That you won't get shot first by your assailant or an unseen accomplice when they see you have a gun. That you won't accidentally shoot a family member or be shot by a family member. That you won't miss and kill the mailman. That there won't be any retaliation. That the possible retaliation won't take others with you.
Only that single scenario is based on a set of assumptions. All the other scenarios you list have multitude of other possibilities that having armed home-owner would change.
1) Some people experience it more often than others. Police and security are often useless for these people. That's the reason they're picked out as targets by criminals. They need it more than most people. Situations vary.
2) Risk-reward dynamic tilts against criminals when there is mutual danger. Criminals prefer zero risk gain.
3) Having gun, not having gun makes no difference. Not an argument for or against.
4) If they are wearing masks, they're going to be committing burglary and not murder. They'd prefer a victim that can't fight back. Again risk-reward dynamic.
5) People can have dogs and guns. Not an argument for or against.
6) In case of unarmed assailants, armed defense can prevent burglary.
7) Again risk-reward dynamic.
8) On part of the victim, people would choose not having their stuff taken in their presence.
9) Having gun, not having gun makes no difference. Not an argument for or against.
10) So it's a game of attrition. If all law abiding citizens had guns then friendly fire could be a serious problem, but then so would committing and getting away with a crime. Attrition appears to heavily favor law-abiding citizens. There are plenty of risks. People have to be adults about it.
Also, it makes considerably more sense to live in a world where no civilians possess guns, than in a world where they all do. This will admittedly be a process, so you can't identify a potential intermediate problem to speak to the virtues/failings of the final goal.
No civilian gun-ownership is a pipe dream. They've been invented and they're part of American culture.
|
On February 22 2012 16:06 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 15:50 dogabutila wrote:
How exactly would they do it without guns? Well okay, that's not a good question. The real question is what are the odds of success without guns? All of those revolutions that just happened recently? Guns in all of them.
And army finally supporting them. Imagine you are an US solider, would you shoot on US people? Guns make no difference. Either the army is against you you get fucked badly, with your 45 or not. Either the army is with you, gratz you win.
Imagine the fact that there was a civil war in the country, imagine that they relied on the army to free them. Imagine them English soldiers shot all them american revolutionaries. Looks like relying on that army to save you really helped.. Imagine that there was a civil war in the country. Imagine that those southern states just hoped the union army would march on D.C. for them. Well, they were out of luck. Atleast they had a fighting chance and in all honestly, could have won the war. Why? Cause they had their own guns.
All these countries in the arab spring? They all involved people fighting the government. Not waiting for the army to come rescue them. Sometimes the army did come to help, but that's besides the point. They don't always.
The other thing, people here assume robbers are nice people and just want your stuff? No. Strong arm robbers have already made the decision to kill you if they have to. They aren't going to get caught, they aren't going to walk away with nothing. They just don't want to kill you because that draws a lot more attention, a lot more manpower, and leaves a lot more evidence behind. When talking about rights, a persons rights end when they infringe on another person. He does not have the right to my stuff, and forfeits his rights when he tries to take them.
You can't use a gun to defend yourself just because a robber has one pointed at you? Please. It happens every day. 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year. 6,850 defensive gun uses a day. Are you seriously trying to claim that none of these happen when the bad guy has a gun pointed at your first? You could go to youtube and see plenty of security footage showing just the opposite. Just because you are not experienced with or proficient at firearms does not mean your theorycrafting about what happens in a robbery situation is true. The reality is, every day people defend themselves with firearms. The reality is, sometimes it just so happens that the bad guy has a gun pointed at the good guy, and the good guy can still defend himself.
Shocking isn't it? That gun's aren't crazy death dealing machines that are permanently set to kill and all you have to do is push a button or pull a lever to kill somebody. Quite honestly, it's HARD to kill somebody with a gun. It's far easier to kill somebody with a knife. On the other hand, it's far easier to get immediate stops with a gun then it is with a knife. Thats why a gun is considered the great equalizer. How do you expect people not in physically good condition to defend his or herself with a knife or pepperspray? It just doesn't work.
|
If someone breaks into my house, I have no idea if he broke in to steal my tv, broke in to rape me, or broke in to kill me. So why exactly should I not shoot to kill?
protip : don't want to get shot? Don't break into people's homes.
|
On February 23 2012 19:35 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 16:06 TanTzoR wrote:On February 22 2012 15:50 dogabutila wrote:
How exactly would they do it without guns? Well okay, that's not a good question. The real question is what are the odds of success without guns? All of those revolutions that just happened recently? Guns in all of them.
And army finally supporting them. Imagine you are an US solider, would you shoot on US people? Guns make no difference. Either the army is against you you get fucked badly, with your 45 or not. Either the army is with you, gratz you win. Imagine the fact that there was a civil war in the country, imagine that they relied on the army to free them. Imagine them English soldiers shot all them american revolutionaries. Looks like relying on that army to save you really helped.. Imagine that there was a civil war in the country. Imagine that those southern states just hoped the union army would march on D.C. for them. Well, they were out of luck. Atleast they had a fighting chance and in all honestly, could have won the war. Why? Cause they had their own guns. All these countries in the arab spring? They all involved people fighting the government. Not waiting for the army to come rescue them. Sometimes the army did come to help, but that's besides the point. They don't always. The other thing, people here assume robbers are nice people and just want your stuff? No. Strong arm robbers have already made the decision to kill you if they have to. They aren't going to get caught, they aren't going to walk away with nothing. They just don't want to kill you because that draws a lot more attention, a lot more manpower, and leaves a lot more evidence behind. When talking about rights, a persons rights end when they infringe on another person. He does not have the right to my stuff, and forfeits his rights when he tries to take them. You can't use a gun to defend yourself just because a robber has one pointed at you? Please. It happens every day. 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year. 6,850 defensive gun uses a day. Are you seriously trying to claim that none of these happen when the bad guy has a gun pointed at your first? You could go to youtube and see plenty of security footage showing just the opposite. Just because you are not experienced with or proficient at firearms does not mean your theorycrafting about what happens in a robbery situation is true. The reality is, every day people defend themselves with firearms. The reality is, sometimes it just so happens that the bad guy has a gun pointed at the good guy, and the good guy can still defend himself. Shocking isn't it? That gun's aren't crazy death dealing machines that are permanently set to kill and all you have to do is push a button or pull a lever to kill somebody. Quite honestly, it's HARD to kill somebody with a gun. It's far easier to kill somebody with a knife. On the other hand, it's far easier to get immediate stops with a gun then it is with a knife. Thats why a gun is considered the great equalizer. How do you expect people not in physically good condition to defend his or herself with a knife or pepperspray? It just doesn't work.
When you accuse someone else of theorycrafting maybe you should refrain from doing it yourself in your reply...
|
On February 23 2012 20:17 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
If someone breaks into my house, I have no idea if he broke in to steal my tv, broke in to rape me, or broke in to kill me. So why exactly should I not shoot to kill?
protip : don't want to get shot? Don't break into people's homes.
Some people have little control over their emotions. What's stopping such people from say, shooting their girlfriend if they break up with them? Shooting their boss after getting fired? Shooting their friends over a trivial argument?
Guns are not the solution. And don't assume other people are competent / sensible / sane, just because you are. Pretty big mistake to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
